Sponsored links

The radical notion that women are adults

So what ARE the best jobs for women, then?

It’s kind of funny to see how confused the crew over at Jezebel is in response to this very strange article by Erin Gloria Ryan. Erin argues that women should NOT go to business school because it will delay their reproductive plans, will offer no real economic value and besides, business schools are filled with douchey frat boys who are all majoring in how to be a dick.

Spending time when you could be having babies… um, not having babies puts you years behind your peers who stayed in the workforce.

A Vanderbilt study found that mothers who graduate from élite institutions are more likely to opt out than graduates of less selective ones, particularly when those women have M.B.A.s. Another Harvard study found that among Harvard college graduates with professional degrees, women with M.B.A.s have the lowest labor force participation rates.

If anything, when a young woman considering a Harvard M.B.A. looks at the choices of her predecessors, she should be even more skeptical of the value of the degree.

I second the opinion that this [article] is disgusting. If it was intended to be satire, the effect has been lost in the offensive down-talking…and the lack of humor. You can say a lot of this same stuff about any graduate education, but where would we be if every woman listened to this instead of her goals & interests.

Indeed, VanillaBean. Where would we be?

Why, we might be in the sort of society that recognizes that women’s ambitions and skills tend to differ from men’s, and that we are doing a piss-poor job as a culture in talking to women honestly about what their true “goals and interests” are likely to be.

What Erin hit on, almost certainly inadvertently although maybe not, is that women with advanced business degrees find that those degrees give them an opportunity to dodge a bullet they didn’t know was coming: they can choose to be full-time mothers, and most of them do exactly that.

Why does an advanced business degree give women that choice?

Because the degree puts them in contact with high-income men, or men with the potential to earn a high income. Grad school is an excellent place to earn an MRS, and the kinds of jobs women with newly minted MBAs get lands them in a large pool of high-income men aka “investment banks”.

Win-win, right?

Not really, because the fact that women with business degrees find themselves actually having a choice when it comes to deciding how to raise their families comes down to LUCK. The vast majority of women in business school probably think they’re going to kick-start some kind of awesome “career”, but when the first little bundle arrives, they realize cubicles SUCK and home is where they really want to be.

We are doing such an enormous disservice to men and women alike when we teach women their “goals and interests” should be the primary motivating factor in deciding what to study at college, and then following that up with some giant lies about what those goals and interests will be.

So let’s talk specifics. Let’s begin with the assumption that almost all women will want to be out of the workforce when they have young children at home.

What kinds of jobs make sense for women who plan on taking a huge chunk of time off? Obviously, the jobs dominated by men are off the table, because we NEED those jobs to be done or society as we know it simply collapses.

When women enter male dominated professions, two things tend to happen: the wages that normally accompany those professions begin to decline, and we end up needing MORE workers in that occupational category.

Why? Because women don’t work as many hours as men.

Medicine is great example of that. Women now make up half the nation’s medical students, but once the ladies do the math, their ambitions take a sharp turn. Four years of pre-med is usually complete around 22 years of age. Another four years of med school takes them to 26 years of age. Add two years of residency on top of that just to qualify as a GP and the lady doctors are suddenly seeing the wall looming directly in front of them. Another four to eight years to qualify as a specialist, and most of them can kiss husbands, kids and families goodbye.

Instead, they quit at the GP level, and then argue for fewer hours, so they can spend more time with their children. It takes two women GPs to cover the patient base of one man. Obviously, wages decline for each individual doctor.

It’s been proven repeatedly—female doctors “will not work the same hours or have the same lifespan of contributions to the medical system as males”

As long as women understand that they WILL and SHOULD make less money than their male counterparts, owing to the fact that their hearts will always be more firmly in the kitchen than the operating room, I have no problem with women as doctors.

In fact, I think it’s a pretty sensible choice, because it gives women an unassailable credential that they can use to transition back to the workforce when and how they like.

Credentials. That is what women should be striving for. Something, that once you have, you have for good. Credentials are what give women choices.

The single most sensible credential I think any woman can pursue is an accounting designation. An accounting designation (CA, CMA, CGA, CPA) gives women enormous career flexibility, and requires only a minimum amount of maintenance to remain in effect. Accountants work in every industry, from 80-hour-a week-big-name accounting firms to hang-out-a-shingle and do the books for the local cornerstore.

You work when you want to work, and you can ramp up when you have finished the business of raising a family.

Accounting and medicine are not the only occupations with credentials. There are lots of them. Go to beauty school and become a hairdresser, by all means. You can cut hair and do foil highlights in your kitchen while the kids are little and work for the big salon when they hit grade school. Some credentials you don’t even need to go to school to earn. C++ or Java programming languages can be learned on-line. For FREE.

Do some recreational programming or work for a charity part time while the kids are little to keep your skills up to date and then consider full-time employment later on.

The point is that women should PLAN to be out of the workforce while their children are little. If that doesn’t happen, well, fine. But at least you have a choice.

Of course, Operation Raise Your Own Children requires one tiny little upgrade: women will need to financially rely on a man. Preferably a husband. Who is preferably actually the father of the children she is at home raising.

And here is where we run into a massive, massive problem.

Women have been taught to hate and fear men and to never rely on them for anything. Which would be funny if it weren’t so blindingly, enragingly stupid. Our whole fucking society relies on men. Water, power, communications, protection, transportation – they are all designed, implemented, operated, maintained and repaired by men, and since the lights continue to go on and shelves in the grocery store continue to be stocked, it looks like men can indeed be relied upon.

Last night, after following the commentary on yesterday’s article, my husband and I were discussing MGOTW. Men who are simply opting out of marriage and family altogether, which as Goober points out has benefits for individual men, but is completely ruinous for society.

My husband came up with a good analogy, I think.

Let’s say you’re a black man or woman, and your whole life, all you have dreamed about is becoming a doctor. You dream of saving other people’s lives. It’s not just a “want”, it’s a calling. A force within you that cannot be ignored.

But there’s a hitch.

At any time, any one of your white patients can legally enslave you. Just apply for personal ownership, and boom, you’re a slave now.

Would you still be a doctor?

I figure that’s what MGTOW boils down to, and the men are saying “hell no, not a fucking chance”.

It’s easy to say “the laws have to change”, and I’ve trotted out that little truism myself. But what laws? And how should they change? We can make divorce harder, but will that stop women from divorcing? We can make custody agreements more fair, but will that stop women from destroying their families? We can outlaw alimony and enforce a more fair division of assets, but will that stop women from dividing up the assets?

Not likely.

Women have always had one power that men will never have: the power to give birth to new life.

I think that’s where the solution will need to originate. Some mechanism to mitigate against that power. The idea of robo-wombs makes me ill, quite frankly, because it’s all too easy to imagine a nightmarish Matrix scenario of rows and rows of human beings coming into existence without the profound human connection pregnancy entails.

But reliable, reversible male birth control. That could be a very real solution. No woman can become pregnant without the explicit permission of the man she wishes to father her child. Pre-gestational agreements determining who gets custody of the child in the event of relationship breakdown could be an amazing bargaining chip. The role of the law would simply be enforcing those agreements.

If we wrest the power to control the creation of life from women’s hands, and make certain that power is shared, we may have a solution to men’s unwillingness to be enslaved at the whim of women.

Let all the divorce and custody and division of assets laws stand as they are. Pre-nuptial agreements, when carried out properly, can circumvent all those laws. Pre-gestational agreements can do the same. Women who wait until the last minute to get pregnant will be making themselves more amenable to fair agreements, and any woman who knows she will lose custody of her children should she decide to trade in for Husband 2.0 because 1.0 just isn’t doing it for her anymore will have cause to reconsider.

If co-habiting couples can agree on who gets the IKEA couch when they break up, before they have even moved in together, why not have agreements about who keeps the house and the kids BEFORE the kids are even conceived?

Well, this post took a detour from my original intention, which was to spell out for women how to plan their lives assuming they WILL take time off from work, but it all makes sense at the end of the day. Women can’t make any plans of the sort without a man to rely on, and men have approximately zero incentive to financially support a woman for years upon years when the result can be utterly ruinous for him.

Male birth control.

That’s where we should be throwing our healthcare dollars. The ramifications could be life-altering, for all of us.

Sadly, BigPharma isn’t interested in the most promising avenues of research, because BigPharma makes a lot of money selling pills to women every month.

Perhaps BigPharma is being a little short-sighted, though. Once men understand just what kind of power a reliable, reversible method of birth control gives them, you might see every last fertile man in the nation lined up for a dose.

And that’s a lot of customers.

A satisfied customer is the best business strategy of all.

Michael LeBoeuf

Women better be brushing up on their own strategy, not only in terms of their jobs, but in terms of negotiating how that baby is going to arrive. There won’t be any “oopsie I forgot to take my pill” bullshit once we have true equality in birth control.

Sponsored links

But why would changing laws not work? It worked before – divorce was not a major problem. Perhaps what you’re saying is that we can’t put the genie back into the bottle?

James Thrice

Hi Judgy! I’ve been lurking on your blog for awhile now (waiting for something to strike me as in dire need of my opinion 😉 ).
There were two things you said I wanted to address.

#1: “The idea of robo-wombs makes me ill . . .”

I agree, but I think that’s where we’re headed anyway. Eventually someone on the left is going to scream and pitch a fit that women are burdened with the act of birth and this WILL GET FUNDED. I think it is inevitable as long the mainstream still strongly believes that women are always the victim.

#2: “Last night, after following the commentary on yesterday’s article, my husband and I were discussing MGOTW . . . Let’s say you’re a black man or woman, and your whole life, all you have dreamed about is becoming a doctor. You dream of saving other people’s lives. It’s not just a “want”, it’s a calling. A force within you that cannot be ignored.
But there’s a hitch.
At any time, any one of your white patients can legally enslave you. Just apply for personal ownership, and boom, you’re a slave now.
Would you still be a doctor?”

I guess I’m MGOTW (although I only first heard that term like a month ago), but from what I know of men I’ve met who belong also technically deserve the distinction, the only constant is that for every man the reasoning is different.

I agree with something Oscar Calme posted on blog yesterday, “The best way to view the phenomenon is as a diverse group of individuals arriving at the same conclusion and/or actions without any centralised direction.”

In my case, I’m asexual. I don’t find women sexually attractive (or men for that matter). I don’t think most men who fit the bill make a conscious decision on matter, but rather make personal choices the face of evidence.

Oscar Calme

Thanks and every man to his own way.

freetofish

The topic of male birth control is an interesting one. Not to toss on the tin foil hat, but the way government and feminism work hand in glove right now, I don’t think we will see it any time soon. It is not in the best interest of the current westernized welfare states to make it easy for men to stop fathering children outside of traditional marriage and thus become tied to a system to separate them from their surplus.

Men do not and have never benefited from illegitimate children.

Alex

i think a big part of the discussion either is or will be, about who has more involved in creating life. as it stands, it looks like women do, but i’ve been thinking that it’s more likely men. (i really do not want to use this analogy by the way, it just sounds effective) it seems like women are more like a kitchen than cook when it comes to kids because they have all the ingredients to create a child, they just need someone to come in and put them together. this makes sense in a way since men have to manually put 100% of energy and effort in not only making the child, but raising it as well, whereas women automatically have around 20-45% put in with the rest consisting of raising the child. is this theory likely to hold up under any circumstances? i find it unlikely, but it does describe the baby-making picture well at least (and no i don’t go around thinking of women as kitchens, it was just a better option than fridge or something). as for changing laws, i would say it would have to be a scale, depending on the reason for divorce, severity of the reason, and who is actually more suitable to raise the kids if they are in the picture

Ed

xD The example of men as doctors versus women as doctors is so true. Both my parents went to the same prestigious university for undergrad. They both went to the same medschool. My father went into a higher-paying speciality with more demanding hours and responsibilities while my mother retired 15 years before he did. Before tax, my father almost certainly earned more in his last couple years working than my mother did in her entire career.

Imagine having a bond with your own child that no woman can ever tear asunder! I love how they advertise their services “for the gay community”. Feminists are now homophobes if they agitate to outlaw international surrogacy.

dave1941

Imagine having a bond with your own child that no woman can ever tear asunder! I love how they advertise “for the gay community”, so that anyone who’d even think of banning international surrogacy is a filthy homophobe. Clever bit of multiculti jujitsu.

Oscar Calme

This was not my first choice of video for Indian surrogacy but as it dealt with men, albeit gay men, I included it. My original choice would have been a similar video from an Indian surrogacy clinic but aimed specifically at single Western men. Go figure.

John

Not legal advice, just sayin’…

People can’t contract to the future financial rights of children before having them, in Florida (where I live), generally. Those rights legally belong to the children, thus they are outside the boundaries of what the parents can agree to (Sort of like a husband and wife can’t agree to pay a grocery store $0.50 for a pound of steak and expect that to be binding upon the grocery store).

What gets interesting, is how child support is calculated here, basically a statutory equation that takes both parties’ incomes, factors in “timesharing” (“custody” is no longer a word here), and gives a number that pretty much MUST be followed. So, as an example, a child who’s father makes a million a year might “need” $6000 per month. If a judge wants to deviate from the guideline, they’re required to have a good reason. Even if two people are getting divorced and want to agree to no child support, they’ll be going up against case law saying this is generally not allowed.

Similarly, good luck predetermining “custody” by agreement. the concepts now are “timesharing” (which implies both parents involved) and “best interests of the child” (which presumes both parents be involved). If both people come in to court saying they want to be in the childs life, and there’s no serious threat to the child from either parent, a court is likely going to say “nice agreement, too bad its unenforceable.” There are cases that hold such agreements regarding custody are explicitly unenforceable.

The problem is 2 people trying to contract to the rights of a third party.

Of course, if two people have children and never get married, someone has to go to the court and ask for support if he/she wants it. If they get married and have minor children, they’re not getting divorced without going to a final hearing where the judge will review timesharing and child support, no matter what the parties want to agree to.

feeriker

The problem is 2 people trying to contract to the rights of a third party.

This is the biggest problem with government in a nutshell: rather than enforcing the terms of contracts voluntarily entered into by two parties (which is its only frigging purpose for existence), it becomes the dictator of terms of the contract, changing them on a whim without the consent of the other two parties.

How anyone considers such an arrangement to constitute a legally binding contract is simply beyond me.

John

The third party is the child. The logic is that a child has “rights” and “best interests” thus the parents can’t contract to things which impede on the child’s rights.

Apparently the government feels that its in the best interests of the child, when both parties want to be in the child’s lives, to have 2 parents. Apparently a child growing up with two parents is more important than enforcing a contract where one party agrees to be out of the child’s life but now wants to be in the child’s life. The child will not be told “sorry, I know you’d like 2 parents, and they both want to see you, but they agreed before you were born that you only get 1 parent.” The child’s interests and rights…

Voluntary agreement between two parties is not the end all of contracts when contracts affect the rights of someone else, at least not here.

Guber

On the surface it’s easy to see that, yes, the 3rd party is the child and the parents can’t waive its rights. The problem is — and I’d love to see that brought to supreme court — that the right of the child is still given to the mother (in most cases) as a proxy. You $6000 per month “need” of the child, in the example, is actually not received by the child, but by the mother to spend however she pleases. Agree not to force a person to micro-account the household budget, but there is a limit, which is out or whack in these higher income situations. It does not take $6000 per month to raise a child. Reality is that any responsible couple with such income would spend a small fraction of this on the children and SAVE the rest, so that when the child comes of age it will have a nice boost in life, college, business start-up, and ultimately inheritance. In my opinion, child support is a state sponsored theft. Men in these situations where they are being extorted for child support should associate in solidarity and exercise civil disobedience, and bring these cases to the highest courts of the land.

John

There was a case here last year where a lesbian couple had a child and raised it together. In Florida, egg donors give up parental rights by law, as the woman who gives birth is the mother. One of the women in the relationship donated her egg and the other woman carried the child and gave birth.

They broke up, the woman that gave birth took the child took the child out of the country. The trial court followed the law which equated to the egg donor no parental rights. This was reversed on appeal…

How many times I have seen chubby pole dancers who are smokers, drinkers, no biceps, no triceps, with high heels, no magnesium in their hands and… incredibly defying gravitational law!
Just like professional male gymnasts do in the Olympics, but professionals do it after years of training, massive biceps, magnesium, discipline, no alcohol, no smoking…
I even would say that pole dance is even more challenging and WOW! And this cabaret gals, do it just after a few weeks of dancing.

That is natural talent.

ibtisaam

no child support for children CONCEIVED out of wedlock (i.e. born within 6 months of wedding date – to accommodate premies) , but father responsible for ALL child related expenses otherwise..

Marriage is a contract. Both sides bring something to the table that the other does not have.

Women have excess sexuality and reproductive capability.
Men have excess protection and provider capability.

In the event of divorce, meaning a cancellation of the contract, both sides must be required to give up the excess that they would otherwise be giving to another spouse (such as alimony), or neither of them should be required.

That means one or more of these solutions.
1) No child custody for the man, but no alimony and significantly reduced or IRS-audited child support paid (force those single moms to demonstrate that child support is spent on the kids or forfeit the support). This leaves the man free to use his best marital asset (his production) to find a new wife and make a new family.
2) Significant child custody for the man, and significant alimony paid to the woman until she remarries. This means the man is still getting what he “paid for”, and all is well. The woman, if she is young enough, can now live life a little easier financially and find a new man to start a family with.
3) Children become wards of the State, no alimony paid. Both sides abandon any claim to marital assets, and go their own way. I realize how horrible this sounds, it’s intentional.

What this would mean for the men is not much different than they already have, except that since men cannot reproduce as easily as a woman, men should be guaranteed at least 50% custody of their children after divorce because children and reproduction is what he cannot do on his own, and what he paid for with his provisioning of the family. There is no contract outside of outright fraud where you pay for something, and then after cancellation of the contract and significant money has changed hands, the thing which you paid for AND the money is taken away from you wholesale. Either the woman must repay the man for his excess provisioning and protection (a daunting task) or she *MUST* give up significant percentages of custody of the children. IMHO, no father should ever receive less than half custody of his kids after divorce, and imho it should shoot to nearly 100% custody if she is receiving any alimony.

What this means for the women is that they can still receive alimony, should they wish since that is what they paid for by giving children to a father, however you cannot have both your sexuality/reproductive capability *AND* provisioning from someone not receiving your sexuality/reproductive capability.

The way divorce is now, women essentially get everything. They pretend like they’re so oppressed and manipulated, but really they’re getting both parts of the contract. It is no different from a dealer-to-dealer drug-deal gone bad where you show up with money, but your dealer shoots you dead and takes both the money AND the drugs, and has one less competitor on the streets. Women divorce, get wholly favorable custody arrangements, get to keep their sexuality (their primary marital asset) and give it to another man, AND get to force the previous husband to pay up alimony (surrender his primary marital asset), ALL AT ONCE. That’s fraud, as NO MA’AM says.

The solution is to tell women, flat out, that they cannot have everything, that something MUST be compromised. Because women continue to childishly deny that their sexuality and reproductive capability is a marital asset, they continue to pretend as if they’re not taking anything away from the men they divorce, and that men should provide for the wife and kids after being separated from them, because children.

It’s bullshit.

Your vagina and uterus are marital assets, PERIOD. These things are what men enter into marriage for. If you get to keep them in good working order after a divorce, and the fruits of your own womb, AND keep a significant chunk of the provisioning of the male, you are a hustler, you are a criminal, you are a thief, you are a despicable destroyer of society.

The solution to preventing MGTOW is simple. Force women to compromise. That means drastic laws, laws that say you cannot have any financial support from a man if you take full custody of the kids. Or how about laws that say if your womb is still capable of bearing children, you cannot have any more than 50% custody of the kids, period. Or how about laws that say if you do not remarry and are receiving alimony, you must submit yourself sexually (with state supervision to make sure) to your ex-husband twice a month, however if you do remarry you are absolved of this requirement but get zero financial compensation from the ex (no child support and no alimony).

Obviously, all those laws have loopholes, and all legislation has unintended consequences. What has to happen is some of the consequences of divorce must be felt by the women, or they’ll keep doing it (for the cash and prizes). The easy and frightening way to do that is with legislation. The hard way is by actually forcing our daughters to learn a healthy amount of empathy.

You’re only focusing on the “accidental baby” aspect of male/female relationships, though, JB. There is more to it. What about the millions of stories of men who married a woman, had children with her willingly, only to then have her turn on him out of nowhere, and take his kids and half of his stuff and future income because she got the tingle?

Male birth control does nothing to solve that problem, and that problem is a direct result of this feminist inculcation that a woman doesn’t have responsibilities. She should always be happy, and if she’s not happy, there is someone other than her to blame for it. She should always be in love and feel attraction to her mate, and if that ever fails, there is no reason for her to try and fix that because it probably isn’t her fault. She is free to do whatever makes her happy without recourse or consequence, and that results in a lot of women growing up to be selfish, horrible bitches that willingly mislead men into taking care of them and making them babies, only to leave after a sufficient amount of time and take everything with her.

My personal, strong belief is that the way to fix this lies with men, and the way to fix it is not MGTOW, although I again restate that I understand and agree with the choice to go MGTOW if you think that’s best for you.

No, the best way to fix it is to do what I said to do the other day on here that got several posters pretty worked up, which was to test drive your girl before you make her your wife. CALL HER ON HER BULLSHIT. When she tries to “tell” you that you’re going to do something, tell her to fuck off until she asks nicely and then thanks you when you’re done. When she gets pissed at you for not doing what she wants, tell her to fuck off even harder. When she gets mad at you for throwing your clothes on the floor, do what I did and tell her that it doesn’t bother you in the slightest that there are clothes on the floor, and if it bothers her, she’s welcome to pick them up, but that you aren’t going to live your life around HER desires and HER wants unless there is some reciprocation. If she asks nicely, then do it, but if you forget sometime, don’t let her bitch you out for it, because you’re only doing it for her in the first place. To sound horribly sexist and misogynistic without really intending to: you’ve got to train her. Or, at least, unteach her all of the things that she was taught up to that point about how she is going to be able to treat her man. And if you find that she’s untrainable, then LEAVE.

None of this is misogynist, either. Imagine a guy telling his gal that SHE was going to do something of his bidding that night. If he came to her and said “you’re going with me here and you don’t have a choice and if you don’t I’m going to be pissed at you!”

Her and every other red-blooded woman would tell you to fuck off, just like I recommend doing to her in the same situation. Explain that to your woman, and she’ll either get it and work to fix it, or she won’t, and you’ll have your answer, then, too.

That’s going to fix it sooner than anything, but as long as we have all these pussy-whupped dudes on TV kowtowing to their harridan wives constantly (Tim the Toolman Taylor?), we aren’t going to get better, because men will assume that catering to your wife’s every whim in the interest of keeping her happy is the norm, and that is the best way I know to crater a marriage. She’ll lose respect for you, fall out of love with you, and run off with your stuff and screw the new guy on the bed that you bought her.

Prodigal Daughter

JB,

While I love most of your posts since stumbling upon your blog last week — all but your pro-abortion stance if the women is poor — I do notice a pendulum shift you swing in the opposite direction, away from women all together. I am no modern feminist, but yet, even I have seen and experienced a different reality concerning male/female relationships and their place in society than what you may have.

‘Women have been taught to hate and fear men and to never rely on them for anything. Which would be funny if it weren’t so blindingly, enragingly stupid. Our whole fucking society relies on men.’

While I think there has been a big push to discount men and their accomplishments, I disagree that women are taught to hate and fear men. Even super feminists/manhaters like Hannah Rosin and Jessica Valenti, surprisingly, ARE married. That fish obviously needed that bicycle. Yes, even Steinem went down the isle. That said, a little independence might be a good thing. Why? Well, for every self-indulgent, neurotica best-selling “Eat, Pray, Love,” there is also “The First Wives Club.” Yes, women may initiate divorce 66% of the time, but the real question should be what were the circumstances behind the decision to do so? Pre-feminism meant turning the other cheek to extra-marital affairs. Now, with the high sexual market that men have access to, why would they marry at all? And why would women marry knowing the potential risk of being discarded down the line for a younger model? Behavior that was once shamed and looked down upon in public, is now accepted in mainstream society (George Clooney, anyone?) and encouraged in the manosphere. (They bitch about Hypergamy and yet expect/demand it when they get older!)

With all these women in the professional workforce, why would they need to rob their ex-husbands blind come divorce?

While I agree with you that there needs to be more rights given to men in reference to child custody/rearing, I think the hatred of women that men’s rights websites preach does more harm than good. I don’t wake up in the morning wondering how I can stick it to my male counterpart. This is about loss of control, not sexual identity. We have more choices now and men simply don’t know how to react. Since this is an ever-changing social experiment, I don’t think women know either.

I do think women have sacrificed too much in their quest to be independent at the expense of the traditional family — the building blocks of society. But to think men are only victims of modern “female-run” indulgence without contributing to it with cad-like behavior and a perpetual man-boy existence is just as questionable as thinking women are better off climbing the corporate ladder in search of selfish gains rather than baking cookies for their respective families.

That said, a little independence might be a good thing. Why? Well, for every self-indulgent, neurotica best-selling “Eat, Pray, Love,” there is also “The First Wives Club.”

No, not really. Dependent specialization allows humanity to exploit the differing strengths of the sexes. Rather than pushing everyone to a lowest-common-demoninator and harming both the labor force and the ability of a nation to raise a new generation, we should be encouraging women to be the best mothers and wives they can, and for men to sacrifice as much as they can for their family.

Yes, women may initiate divorce 66% of the time, but the real question should be what were the circumstances behind the decision to do so?

The circumstances are:
1) A divorce court system geared towards extracting as much financially from a man as possible
2) A divorce court system that favors female custody
3) A divorce court system that believes any and all accusations of physical abuse levied at the male.

Sounds to me like there’s no way to lose for the woman, hence the 66+%

Pre-feminism meant turning the other cheek to extra-marital affairs. Now, with the high sexual market that men have access to, why would they marry at all?

What in gods name are you babbling about? High sexual market that men have access to? What is that supposed to mean, or was it some flippant imagination burp that managed to make it’s way into words? The sexual marketplace is dominated, wholly dominated by the 20-25 year old female, period. Men extract what they want from the SMP less than 1/4th as often as women do, and with a lot more effort expended. Women get sex whenever they want it, men have to learn how to exploit their value there through years of rejection. There is no “special access pass” that men get to some fantasyland of sex. Your opinion here also sounds like it simply objectifies men to the point of presuming that no men want to be fathers, only to extract sex.

And why would women marry knowing the potential risk of being discarded down the line for a younger model? Behavior that was once shamed and looked down upon in public, is now accepted in mainstream society (George Clooney, anyone?) and encouraged in the manosphere. (They bitch about Hypergamy and yet expect/demand it when they get older!)

Clooney did not marry specifically because of the one-sided nature of the divorce industry. Jesus, go read anything he’s said about the subject and you’ll realize that Clooney REACTED to a divorce-court system that women selfishly skewed too far into their favor. He’s simply the highest-value MGTOW in existence. I’m sure that would make any woman angry, because you can’t get commitment from him. I’m sure it just pisses you off, and many other women off, that even though there’s this super high value man you will never get commitment from him… aww… too bad. Maybe if the women of the developed world hadn’t demonstrated such a solipsistic nature, you might’ve had a shot at commitment from men such as Clooney.

This is a chicken-and-egg scenario. You can say all you want that men who don’t marry have less to begin with. The reality is quite the converse. Men who marry produce more BECAUSE they are married. All that regular sex and loving from a woman is HIGHLY MOTIVATING. Women seem to be entirely blind to the effects their sexuality has on men because they’re so hell bent on denying that their sexuality has anything to do with the man wanting them.

Men who do not marry are less motivated to do anything for anyone but themselves. Thankfully they are not less motivated in this regards than the single ladies who don’t marry. Such ladies can be just about the most self-centered people on the planet.

With all these women in the professional workforce, why would they need to rob their ex-husbands blind come divorce?

Indeed, why would anyone want free money when the divorce industrial complex will simply award it to them for a percentage of the profit? Are we now in fantasyland?

…I think the hatred of women that men’s rights websites preach does more harm than good. I don’t wake up in the morning wondering how I can stick it to my male counterpart. This is about loss of control, not sexual identity. We have more choices now and men simply don’t know how to react. Since this is an ever-changing social experiment, I don’t think women know either.

No.

Women’s inability to make sound choices when presented with them is the problem. Women want to believe all kinds of nonsense about their biology and how it allows them to have the exact same lives as men. They do this because they want ALL the options, they want it ALL. This is retarded. Males have their entire lives to work on their careers, and they realize that choices have consequences and you cannot “have it all”. Female biology does not allow women to have the same lives as men with the addition of children, it simply doesn’t. You have a limited time in which to make babies, period. You have an even smaller amount of time to exploit your youthful appearance to snag a high-quality man. But all these women in society want to ignore these two basic facts, act like they can spend their entire youth studying to be a PhD, and then cry bloody murder when men are no longer attracted to them because the women are now past their youthful-use-by-date. That’s like asking a woman to be attracted to a 14-year-old pimply socially awkard, no-friends nerd, it won’t happen, it shouldn’t happen. Nature dictates that it will never be the norm.

Men are reacting exactly as they should react to women’s poor choices. Men are attracted to youth, beauty, and fertility. If your choices as a female bring you into a profession that wastes the period in which you have those assets in spades in order to become a judge, a renowned doctor, a politician, etc… well good luck with that cougars-over-50.com account, I hope you find your unicorn.

Prodigal Daughter

Let the manosphere hate begin.

‘Rather than pushing everyone to a lowest-common-demoninator and harming both the labor force and the ability of a nation to raise a new generation, we should be encouraging women to be the best mothers and wives they can, and for men to sacrifice as much as they can for their family.’

I don’t disagree with this.

‘Sounds to me like there’s no way to lose for the woman, hence the 66+%’

Where women lose is a broken household for their children. Sane women will never put their children through hell and back because they can. Maybe it’s time to seek out women with character? Church might be a good place to start.

‘The sexual marketplace is dominated, wholly dominated by the 20-25 year old female, period. Men extract what they want from the SMP less than 1/4th as often as women do, and with a lot more effort expended. Women get sex whenever they want it, men have to learn how to exploit their value there through years of rejection. There is no “special access pass” that men get to some fantasyland of sex. ‘

Wrong. The sexual market place is dominated by “alpha” pick up artists who want to exploit as many anonymous, unsuspecting females as possible. Notice how there are no (successful) male prostitutes/strippers walking the street at night for women? Women aren’t wired like men. We have access to sex easily because we don’t want it as much without commitment. Having ten times less testosterone as men subdues our primal sexual urges. I’d be curious to see a chart of total LIFETIME PARTNERS between the sexes. My money is on the male species.

‘Your opinion here also sounds like it simply objectifies men to the point of presuming that no men want to be fathers, only to extract sex.’

Do you read Roissy? Roosh? Any pick up artist/manosphere sites? Their following consists of men having tons of non-committal sex (with or without condoms) and are militant in their “never marry” stance. They blame feminism for all of their excessive sexual triumphs when in reality they wouldn’t be able to pump and dump without it. Who is objectifying whom?

‘Clooney REACTED to a divorce-court system that women selfishly skewed too far into their favor. He’s simply the highest-value MGTOW in existence. I’m sure that would make any woman angry, because you can’t get commitment from him.’

Actually, Clooney has said in the past that he wasn’t ready for marriage at that time in his life. Probably that perpetual man-boy adolescence I referred to. Doesn’t matter. I don’t date cads. No amount of money offered could buy me as a date for an infamous man-whore. And, thank you, I just noticed the verbal spin of selfish men who stay single and opt-out of traditional life in order to take advantage of feminist-inspired (a.k.a. easily won) pussy.

MGTOW = Bastard worship.

“But it’s a choice to go my own way…as I enter a random woman’s vagina.” I might understand MGTOW as a message if opting out of sex entirely was part of the deal, but it ain’t. Clooney’s cold and controlled promiscuous lifestyle coupled with a no kids mantra- verified with vasectomy – tells me all I need to know. Exploiting women (or men) should not be the objective here for either sex.

‘Women want to believe all kinds of nonsense about their biology and how it allows them to have the exact same lives as men. They do this because they want ALL the options, they want it ALL. This is retarded. Males have their entire lives to work on their careers, and they realize that choices have consequences and you cannot “have it all”.’

Agree.

‘Men are reacting exactly as they should react to women’s poor choices. Men are attracted to youth, beauty, and fertility. If your choices as a female bring you into a profession that wastes the period in which you have those assets in spades in order to become a judge, a renowned doctor, a politician, etc… well good luck with that cougars-over-50.com account, I hope you find your unicorn.’

What is it with the manosphere and “The Wall”? Honey, we all face The Wall. It’s called death. Men probably face their Wall a few years later- let’s call this stage Post-Viagra. In Post-Viagra, men who do not have families — most of the older readership of PUA sites — dream of holding a 23 year old virgin in their arms and raising their autistic twins (due to older sperm malfunctions, ahem) in kumbaya bliss.

Uh, a few things that raises some manicured eyebrows.

1) Just like women who lose their sexual value after a certain age, so do men. Women, who are not gold diggers, don’t want old balls on top of them. Even whorest whore of them all, Samantha from Sex and the City, turned down old balls covered in gold.

2) Do you really want your wife to be changing two sets of diapers? One for your kid and one for you?

Let’s say you hit the Post-Post-Viagra stage and reemerge from MGTOW exile — all those blue pills from the constant sexcapades were making you gassy anyway. You then decide that you won’t breed with a woman half your age but you’re happy compromising at a quarter age difference. Does it ever cross your mind that you are depriving your future children a relationship with you if you keel over whilst playing kickball in your wheelchair? So yes, in this case, The Wall is literally death. In your hate for females everywhere, you have deprived yourself the knowledge of what it’s like to leave a genetic legacy that you helped raise into fine, accomplished members of a traditional society. What were you doing instead? Screwing (and screwing) yourself over.

Congrats on not being part of the system! You won!

James Thrice

As the old saying goes, “those who couldn’t win an argument were the first to throw around insults.” I would advise against being rude when you’re trying to have an honest debate.

Prodigal, you’re new here. I appreciate that you have your own views, but I would reconsider any plans to come in with guns blazing.

A little politeness goes a long way when you’re the new kid on the block.

Prodigal Daughter

JB, while I respect your blog and what it represents, I’m surprised this statement would be coming from you. I’m not gonna cower, or play nicey-nice to rude men who try and challenge me. Re-read the posts and see for yourself that other men, who have not been singled out for their language, attack full force. That’s fine but I’m simply not gonna take it sitting down, especially since I am a girl and my sex is the subject in question.

I tend to mirror those I debate. If someone is nice, I’m nice back. If someone is rudely intimidating, I give their medicine right back to them – but with more humor. Growing up with an alpha father that sought out intellectual confrontation made me fearless in this regard.

No one is asking you to reign in “fearless”. You are being asked to show a little more respect to commenters who have been here much longer than you and who have tested the waters with me in terms of what is acceptable.

Troy

Sane women will never put their children through hell and back because they can.

Given this as a premise and the fact of the number of poor, single mothers, I can only conclude that a very large percentage of women are insane.

I disagree that women are taught to hate and fear men. Even super feminists/manhaters like Hannah Rosin and Jessica Valenti, surprisingly, ARE married.

But despite that they spent their entire lives teaching young women to hate and fear men. Period. You can’t possibly disagree that modern feminism is all about man-hate, unless you are either intellectually dishonest or stupid.

That said, a little independence might be a good thing. Why? Well, for every self-indulgent, neurotica best-selling “Eat, Pray, Love,” there is also “The First Wives Club.”

I’d be listening in on the boo-hooing here a little more if the poor ladies of the “first wives club” not only lost their marriage and their husband, but also their kids, half of the assets that they’d accumulated to date, and a sizeable chunk of any future assets that they plan to make down the road, lessening their ability to score another mate to replace husband #1.

One of these things is not like the other in another way, too. Can you spot it?

In “Eat, Pray, Love” the person that left was the protagonist, painted in a positive light and presented as a model for others to emulate.

In “First Wives Club” the person that left was presented as a useless cad piece of shit who needed to die in a fire.

The motivations of the people in each movie were exactly the same, but their treatment in popular culture was entirely diffferent. I wonder why…

Never mind, i don’t wonder. The piece of shit was a man. The wonderful, brave, model of a person was a woman. Literally THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO CHARACTERS.

So, yeah, epic fail on your example there…

Yes, women may initiate divorce 66% of the time, but the real question should be what were the circumstances behind the decision to do so?

Already been asked and answered on JB’s blog many times. The vast majority of divorces initiated by women don’t mention adultery. They mention unhappiness and falling out of love. Read my post above for my explanation for how I feel about that bullshit. Also, is falling out of love enough reason to strip the guy of everything he’s got? It’s bull, and you have to be smart enough to know it.

Now, with the high sexual market that men have access to, why would they marry at all?

Speaking for myself? Love. Companionship. That feeling that you aren’t alone in life and that no matter what happens, there is someone there that has your back. Bearing and raising your children with you, who will know you better than you know yourself, and love you more than you love yourself.

Are you really so sour on men that you can’t fathom that one of us awful creatures would have any other motivation besides sex to marry? Because this is only a short listing of the non-sexual reasons that I married my wife.

Also, I recently read a study that said men who were complaining about not marrying for fear of women taking all that they had, didn’t have much to begin with.

Really? Are you seriously struggling with logic this much, that you can’t understand why a person with more meager resources would be more apt to protect what little they have? Or that someone who is flush with resources might not care so much if a bunch of them were taken?

OF COURSE men with less worry more about losing what they have. How is that a revelation to you? How do you think that forwards your point at all?

And the women that they did refer to ended up making more money than they did.

And yet despite that, the divorce court will still strip HIM of his assets and give them to HER. Are you getting it yet?

With all these women in the professional workforce, why would they need to rob their ex-husbands blind come divorce?

Seriously, I’ve got to check in at this point in time to make sure you’re not fucking with me. Do you really need for me to explain why an individual would work to get everything that they could in a given situation when the system is on their side?

Why would any person feel the need to sue a company for millions of dollars because they tripped on an uneven sidewalk?

BECAUSE THEY CAN. BECAUSE IT’S FREE, AND LEGALLY SANCTIONED, and makes a fuckton of money for them. What more reason do you need?

I think the hatred of women that men’s rights websites preach does more harm than good.

Finally, we agree here. 100%. You cannot become the thing you hate, it does no good. I’ve said that more than once on here.

I don’t wake up in the morning wondering how I can stick it to my male counterpart.

Good. Many women do. Feminism encourages that. What’s your point?

This is about loss of control, not sexual identity. We have more choices now and men simply don’t know how to react.

Men are not reacting to the fact that women have more choices. They are reacting to the fact that women have NO RESPONSIBILITY whatsoever for their own actions in today’s society, while men are still expected to uphold 100% of their responsibility.

Just one small example in an ocean of examples that I could trot out:

Unexpected pregnancy. Women have exactly as much responsibility as they choose to have. Abort. Adopt. Keep. The choice is yours.

Men, on the other hand… You get whatever she chooses, and you’re on the hook no matter what.

Or divorce. Woman wants a divorce, and she gets everything she wants by default. Kids, money, alimony…

Man, on the other hand, gets 100% of the responsiblity after thedivorce, with none of the benefit (ie, he will have to pay for his kids, but will likely not be able to see them much). No responsiblity vs. 100% of the responsibility. Any woman complaining about the modern standard and how women have it just as bad as men is either intellectually dishonest or a complete fucking idiot.

Need I go on?

But to think men are only victims of modern “female-run” indulgence without contributing to it with cad-like behavior and a perpetual man-boy existence is just as questionable as thinking women are better off climbing the corporate ladder in search of selfish gains rather than baking cookies for their respective families.

I don’t disagree, but want to point out that the behavior of the men that you describe is a response to the behavior of the women. It would mostly go away, if this neo-feminst BS would go away, too.

Prodigal Daughter

‘I’d be listening in on the boo-hooing here a little more if the poor ladies of the “first wives club” not only lost their marriage and their husband, but also their kids, half of the assets that they’d accumulated to date, and a sizeable chunk of any future assets that they plan to make down the road, lessening their ability to score another mate to replace husband #1. ‘

So being kicked to the curb in one’s golden years with no chances of snagging a decent man since they’re all looking for younger tail is OK if rejected divorcée obtains a settlement from the first husband? Uh, no. That’s not how marriage is supposed to work. Men ARE capable of self-serving behavior last time I checked. Or am I not supposed to speak the obvious?

Did I support the the main character’s decision in “Eat, Pray, Love”? No, which is why I brought it up. Female or male, tossing lovers aside is wrong on all accounts. What happens when a penniless man leaves his wife for the younger secretary (’cause that never happens!) at work and the wife doesn’t receive enough money from child support to pay her bills? Two wrongs don’t make a right here. Again, blind hatred toward women does not a free pass for cads make. I expected “alphas” to not take on the victim card so easily. I have been proven wrong, apparently.

‘The vast majority of divorces initiated by women don’t mention adultery. They mention unhappiness and falling out of love.’

I’d love to see the link to those stats you mention.

‘Seriously, I’ve got to check in at this point in time to make sure you’re not fucking with me. Do you really need for me to explain why an individual would work to get everything that they could in a given situation when the system is on their side?’

Do you think corruption of the human soul was any less potent pre-feminism? How do you explain the genetic ancestry of African Americans being 20% white? Abuse of power (rape) is also linked to one of our Founding Father’s family bloodline – is this what Thomas Jefferson had in mind for liberty?

‘Men are not reacting to the fact that women have more choices. They are reacting to the fact that women have NO RESPONSIBILITY whatsoever for their own actions in today’s society, while men are still expected to uphold 100% of their responsibility.’

You think a paycheck qualifies as responsibility? Here’s an idea, how about not exploiting women sexually and then demand that she get an abortion? One of the PUA Masters, Tucker Max, brags about writing abortions off in his taxes.

You wanna bring back the traditional family? Stop fucking whores. In fact, stop fucking full stop until you qualify a woman worthy of your seed. And then maybe you won’t find yourself at the mercy of the courts.

Look, men and women are not individually to blame here. Absolute power corrupts absolutely as we can attest by the evidence from both sexes. SO STOP BLAMING WOMEN FOR ALL YOUR PROBLEMS AND FIX YOUR OUTPUT ACCORDINGLY!

Why do I feel we’re talking past each other in responses? I’m on the side of the nuclear family – my beef is with men who cannot see wrong on both sides of the equation.

Oscar Calme

Dear Radical Daughter I really do not get where you are coming from. You try to establish that men do that too and in some cases you are right. If men in frustration took up live kitten eating en masse would women feel they were justified?

Most of us know that men can be assholes as well as women. The problem is that the legal, political and social systems don’t realise this therefore do not act appropriately. This leads to a raft of substantively misandric legislation. VAWA over there and again the clue is in the name.

Although we live in different countries and there may be differences you have in the motivation for women for divorcing. Read Dalrocks blog on divorce before you use phrases such as ” … getting kicked to the curb in their golden years”. He discusses in nauseating detail how women are fed divorce fantasies in the media plus he is a master at dissecting government stats, on amongst other issues, divorce.

Your style of argument is really not logical or even pleasant to read and smacks of the feminine imperative on a rant. However, one thing you say really annoyed me and is typical of what JB mentioned earlier.

“I’d love to see the link to those stats you mention.”

How about you show us stats saying that women are kicked to the curb in their Golden Years. Please do your own research to prove your point. We are not here to prove your assertions, that is your job. I need do no more than refer you Dalrock who will give you a lot of material on the state of modern divorce specifically in the US.

As for not having sex with whores I have already stopped having sex with women and I think that you will find that this is your biggest problem coming over the horizon.

Many thanks and the introduction to was not a typo but rather what I think of you and please do not compare me to Tucker Max again.

Ter

Re: “I don’t wake up in the morning wondering how I can stick it to my male counterpart.”

..well, you don’t have to because there’s a whole industry already busy doing it for you, so you probably don’t notice it so much. Just like people of a ‘favored’ race tend not to notice racial discrimination so much.

Even one of Australia’s most prestigious newspapers (The Age) publishes an entire feminist section “Daily Life” featured on their homepage http://www.theage.com.au/ in addition to it’s feminist-leaning mainstream stories. It’s half-way down the page and links to http://www.dailylife.com.au/

I could go on – but the daily barrage of crap men have to endure is just ridiculous.

JB’s blog is such a refreshing reminder that not all is lost – there are still some decent women out there.

MRA-Akhil

JB, The IVF trade is/has given the opportunity to reprice the Womb or help the desiring liberated married sisters with Kids, Strike deals…..

I´m sorry, I don´t mean to be a negative Nancy. But, I know this year a judge in Long Island overturned a pre-nup. More generally, it is my understanding that, even when the laws are written gender neutral, that the “interpretation and application” of the law has always worked against men and in favor of women:

Then, the other thing I thought about are false accusations. I don´t think a pre-nup custody and child support agreements would stand a chance when a wife makes false accusations of domestic (and possibly sexual) violence. Given that false allegations are already a routine ploy for tactical advantage in a divorce, I can only imagine it getting worse if wives feel that they won´t get their way due to the pre-nups.

In Oregon, laws were changed to increase shared parenting and afterwards women simply started making more false domestic violence accusations.

Marriage is trending down towards oblivion. Women, if they manage to get out of college with their heterosexuality in tact, are increasingly “going for broke”, in that they are either going to marry a millionaire or no one at all. After all, once you’re college educated, you’re worth something, aren’t you? That degree makes you absolutely so much better than that guy fixing the high tension power line. To hell with him. That degree makes you too good for the guy driving that truck and that guy paving the road that truck is on and so on and so forth.

And those Harvard men are going to increasingly use “escorts” as that will be the only safe sex around. Realistically, the amount of public scandal you get in these days from a bitter divorce or by having your name on a call-girl client list is about the same. Anyone can be re-habilitated these days.

And thus the pool of “eligible” men dries to a puddle.

So telling a woman what career to have for childrearing only works when there is a hope of marriage in the first place. Jezebel might be right on this one, take care of yourself first, ladies. Don’t depend on us men anymore. We’re going to put the world on your shoulders for a while and let you run it. We could use the rest.

Feminism Is A Lie

I think first thing’s first – we need to counter the feminist ideals in popular media and politics, promoting the whole “we don’t need no man” message. For women to even consider the perfect “child bearing” careers, they need to not have been indoctrinated by feminism to believe they can do everything a man can and then some. She can have it all and if some man won’t give her everything, she’ll leave him with nothing. This is sort of thinking that MUST be curbed first, but sadly, I don’t see it happening very soon. It’s become so ingrained in all aspects of society. We’ve created a culture where women can get everything without the responsibility and that must be done away with first, so that healthy, balanced relationships can be formed between men and women again. Relationships where both people accept their role and their responsibilities, where they take ownership of their mistakes and work to fix it, etc. Women have basically become like children who’ve never been told “no” and I’m sure I don’t need to explain how disastrous that is. It doesn’t matter what laws are in place – women to be given a good dose of reality so they can start thinking logically and realistically about relationships and careers. They need to change their way of thinking first – you CAN NOT have it all.

One of my biggest lessons from manosphere bloggers, this idea that women are tricked/cuckolded into a false ideology: ie/ feminism. I see many people day to day who have no idea about their purpose in this life or what they want. They swallow the blue pill diligently each morning. Women are no different, they are often lost in the noise as many of us are. They are sold bullshit like many of us are.

I recently dated a near-graduated medical student. she is a late twenties asian girl, and very intelligent. However she cannot cook or clean, and isn’t interested in having children. She is inevitably going to miss her chance to properly fulfil her genetic destiny, something that would likely result in more happiness/growth for her than the job of being a BigPharma spokeswoman. She is going to have an increasing uphill battle to find a high value provider.

Dollars and cents. As always, fuck it all up. We are chasing our tails. I take solace in the truth that I have time to grow and develop myself even more. I have time to find a beautiful young woman with the right genetics and mindset, and show her the truth. To lead her into a happy, safe life with her kids. To help her raise the kind of human beings that we will need in our post-globalised future.

High value men really do need a solution in regards to contraception, I have in recent days booked and cancelled a vasectomy operation for this very reason. Don’t get caught fellas, unfortunate as it is, if she thinks you are a strong provider she will justify her behaviour if necessary. “whoops, I missed the pill that one time, total accident”.

Spaniard

Beta provider male is da nigga of da world.

Spaniard

This is my advice:

Go to North Africa, to Atlas mountains.
In this area remains a peculiar ethnics, pre-Arabic and pre-Muslim.
There are beautiful young white women, with blond hair and blue eyes.
But this women have no idea of feminism neither Europe or States. Well, after the French colony, they have a vague idea. But no much.
Even Muslim religion is not so heavy in this tribes because they used to have their own pagan religion before the Muslim invasion at the end of Ancient Age.
This young women would die to marry a European or American male.
A woman from this tribe will be your sexual slave and housekeeper forever, and very happy to be. So, you will have a 1001 Nights huri with the face of a Nordic woman.
It is not fantastic?
But, please, be extremely respectful to local culture. Do not go in an arrogant westerner way. Be Lawrence of Arabia, be Captain Burton. Do not be José María Aznar.
Enjoy that beautiful and so spiritual land. Be gentle to the locals. Treat your huri like she is: like a princess. And she will treat you like a Sultan. It is a fair deal.

Fuck Western women.

Spaniard

Take a look to this goddess: Isabelle Adjani.
She is French from Berber origin.

Master Beta

I don’t identify as a MGTOW or anything, but I am a single man and it seems likely I will remain that way for the foreseeable future. Anyhow, for me I think one of the main reasons I find myself like this is not a legal thing or the like, but simply that it is in my nature to go where I am appreciated and valued, and to not stick around where I am unwanted. Rare is the woman these days who appreciates and values her man, or indeed any men.

Oscar Calme

This my point. Men don’t join a MGTOW movement but make a decision for themselves based on their circumstances and what they see on the ground. Many men who adopt the MGTOW label did not know of the existence of the phenomenon before they read about it in the sphere. Many men who can be categorised as MGTOW don’t know the label exists or the ‘manosphere’ for that matter.

Troy

But reliable, reversible male birth control. That could be a very real solution. No woman can become pregnant without the explicit permission of the man she wishes to father her child.

I think this is the most perspicacious observation of this piece. I disagree with Mrs. JB about the lack of incentive to find male birth control. I’ve read elsewhere (I’m too lazy to google it) about companies that are trying to find a version of male birth control. And the reason is because they will make a shit-ton of money.

Whether it is male birth control or artificial uteruses, this bridge is going to be crossed. And I hope I am alive to see it because we will then see women’s informal power completely collapse. If there is male birth control, men will be able to be more selective with whom they choose to procreate. If court will not enforce prebirth contracts, then they will simply will not have children. The balance of power will shift to a more equal setting and I can’t wait to see both sexes will react.

Congrats, you have described MGTOW in a nutshell. Rollo Thomassi also said it well on RationalMale: I will be nobody’s fool and nobody’s slave.

Bring on that male contraceptive. Given that 40% of babies are “oops” when there is a proven <1% failure rate on the Pill, someone's got some explaining to do – and it ain't the man involved. Dumping all forms of single-mother support from the government (unlikely) would help cut down on the epidemic of single mommies.

Regarding fixing the divorce problem: to hell with putting extra band-aids on the problem. Simply roll marriage back 150 years to when men by default got child custody and women got nothing – because the man had to work AND look after the children. All of a sudden women will be far more selective about who they marry. Their parents will likewise be far more involved in the process, like they used to be (back when a suitor had to ask the girl's father for permission to marry his daughter).

Have we fixed everything? Hell no – because I don't realistically see much of the above happening. Until it does, I'll be down at the beach.

Homeless Ronin

I don’t think male birth control would mean much. Some Countries are now going after anonymous sperm donors to rip them off because mommy can’t bankroll her own choice. It’s ugly, but men should fight for the right to adopt, and keep women out. Aside from the real lost cases, being put aside and kept at distance is what make most women reevaluate what the heck they are doing.

JBfan

Easiest answer for women who want to “have it all”, work from home. In the early days of feminism computers were huge inefficient fridge-shaped machines, but nowadays we can use laptops to make blockbuster style (close enough) movies with laptops at home – hell, we can even do that on our I-phones. So, important conference? Video chat. Meeting? Skype. Any other work? E-mail. C’mon ladies, search your feelings, you know it to be true!

Erik Norén

Thing about an exowomb tho is it could equalize things on the “keep the baby”-side. It would let the mother get rid of the baby while still letting the father keep it. And with the research in implantable chips they could synch with the father, simulating his biorythms towards the baby and possibly simulating things from the baby towards the father.